Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Teknikleri Olarak AHP, TOPSIS ve WASPAS ile Tedarikçi Seçimi: Ofis Koltukları Sektöründe Bir Uygulama

Öz

Rekabetçi bir ortamda işletmeler kârlılıklarını korumak için maliyetlerini kontrol etmek istemektedir. Doğru tedarikçi ile çalışmak, işletmenin ürün ve hizmetlerinin kalitesini artırmaya yardımcı olur ve maliyetleri en uygun seviyede tutar. Tedarikçi seçiminde birden fazla kriter söz konusu olduğu için doğru tedarikçiyi seçmek karmaşık bir problem olabilir. Tercih kriterleri ve alternatif tedarikçi sayısı karar vericiler için zorlayıcı olabilmekte ve rasyonel karar verme süreci uzayabilmektedir. Bu çalışma, Türkiye'de Organize Sanayi Bölgesi'nde ofis koltuğu üreten bir firmanın ham deri malzeme tedariği için en uygun tedarikçiyi seçmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu problemi çözmek için farklı çok kriterli karar verme tekniklerinden AHP, TOPSIS ve WASPAS yöntemleri kullanılmış ve sonuçlar karşılaştırılmıştır. Yöntemlerin kullanımı için gerekli kriterlerin belirlenmesi ve bu kriterlerin değerlendirilmesi için firmanın üretim, satın alma ve kalite kontrol birimlerinin yöneticilerinin görüşlerine başvurulmuştur. Literatür ve uzman görüşleri sonucunda dört ana kriter ve sekiz alt kriter oluşturulmuştur. Ana kriter maliyet olurken, bunu kalite, teslimat ve destek takip etmiştir. Tedarikçiler her üç teknik kullanılarak değerlendirilmiş ve firma için sıralanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tedarikçi Seçimi
• Çok Kriterli Karar Verme
• AHP
• TOPSIS
• WASPAS

Supplier Selection with AHP, TOPSIS and WASPAS as Multi-criteria Decision-making Techniques: An Application in Office Chairs Industry

Öz

In a competitive environment, businesses want to control costs to maintain profitability. Working with the right supplier helps improve the quality of the enterprise's products and services and keeps costs at the most appropriate level. Since there are multiple criteria in supplier selection, choosing the right supplier can be a complex problem. The preference criteria and the number of alternative suppliers can be challenging for decision-makers, and the rational decision-making process can be extended. This study aims to select the most suitable supplier for the raw leather material supply of a company manufacturing office chairs in the Organized Industrial Zone in Türkiye. AHP, TOPSIS, and WASPAS methods, which are different multi-criteria decision-making techniques, were used to solve this problem, and the results were compared. The managers' opinions of the company's production, purchasing, and quality control units were consulted to determine the criteria required for the use of the methods and to evaluate these criteria. As a result of the literature and expert opinions, four main criteria and eight sub-criteria were formed. The main criterion was cost, followed by quality, delivery, and support. Suppliers were evaluated using all three techniques and ranked for the company.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Supplier Selection
• Multi-Criteria Decision Making
• AHP
• TOPSIS
• WASPAS

Kaynakça

1. Agarwal, P., Sahai, M., Mishra, V., Bag, M., & Singh, V. (2011). A review of multi-criteria decision making techniques for supplier evaluation and selection. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, 2(4), 801-810. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijiec.2011.06.004
2. Azimifard, A., Moosavirad, S. H., & Ariafar, S. (2018). Selecting sustainable supplier countries for Iran’s steel industry at three levels by using AHP and TOPSIS methods. Resources Policy, 57, 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.01.002
3. Cheng, E. W., Li, H., & Ho, D. C. (2002). Analytic hierarchy process (AHP): A defective tool when used improperly. Measuring Business Excellence, 6(4), 33-37. https://doi.org/10.1108/13683040210451697
4. Chan, F. T., & Kumar, N. (2007). Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach. Omega, 35(4), 417-431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2005.08.004
5. Chen, C.-H. (2020). A Novel Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Building Material Supplier Selection Based on Entropy-AHP Weighted TOPSIS. Entropy, 22(2), 259. https://doi.org/10.3390/e22020259
6. Çebi, F., & Bayraktar, D. (2003). An integrated approach for supplier selection. Logistics Information Management, 16(6), 395–400. https://doi.org/10.1108/09576050310503376
7. Çekiç, C., Gül, N. N., & Güner, A. F. (2022). Managing supplier selection problem with integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy VIKOR: A manufacturing company case. Journal of Advances in Manufacturing Engineering, 3(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.14744/ytu.jame.2022.00001
8. Eren A. & Khorsheed HA. (2023). Determining online travel planning with AHP and TOPSIS methods. Acta Infologica. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.26650/acin.1165378

9. Evcioğlu, E. H, Kabak M. (2023). Supplier selection in supply chain network using MCDM methods. Sigma J Eng Nat Sci, 41(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.14744/sigma.2023.00001
10. Federation of Furniture Associations (2024). Furniture Industry 2023 Analysis. İstanbul.
11. Garfamy, R. M. (2006). A data envelopment analysis approach based on total cost of ownership for supplier selection. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 19(6), 662-678. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410390610708526
12. Goodarzi F, Vahid Abdollahzadeh, Masoomeh Zeinalnezhad (2022). An integrated multi-criteria decision making and multi-objective optimization framework for green supplier evaluation and optimal order allocation under uncertainty. Decision Analytics Journal, 4, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2022.100087
13. Gurung, S., & Phipon, R. (2017). Multi-criteria decision making for supplier selection using AHP and TOPSIS method. International Journal of Engineering Inventions, 6(2),13-17.
14. Haddad, A. N., da Costa, B. B. F., de Andrade, L. S., Hammad, A., & Soares, C. A. P. (2021). Application of Fuzzy-TOPSIS Method in Supporting Supplier Selection with Focus on HSE Criteria: A Case Study in the Oil and Gas Industry. Infrastructures, 6(8), 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures6080105
15. Hanine, M., Boutkhoum, O., Tikniouine, A. et al. (2016). Application of an integrated multi-criteria decision making AHP-TOPSIS methodology for ETL software selection. SpringerPlus 5, 263. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-1888-z
16. Hong, G. H., Park, S. C., Jang, D. S., & Rho, H. M. (2005). An effective supplier selection method for constructing a competitive supply-relationship. Expert Systems with Applications, 28(4), 629-639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2004.12.020
17. Ince, M. N., Tasdemir, C., & Gazo, R. (2023). Lean and Sustainable Supplier Selection in the Furniture Industry. Sustainability, 15(22), 15891. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215891
18. Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U., & Ulukan, Z. (2003). Multi-criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP. Logistics Information Management, 16(6), 382-394. https://doi.org/10.1108/09576050310503367
19. Karğın, I. R. (2020). omko.org.tr: https://www.omko.org.tr/uploads/sektor-raporlari/mobilya-sektor-raporu.pdf
20. Khaled, A. A., Paul, S. K., & Chakraborty, R. K. (2011). Selection of suppliers through different multi-criteria decision making techniques. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 11(4):1-11.
21. Kokoç, M., & Ersöz, S. (2019). Comparison of AHP-TOPSIS and AHP-VIKOR Methods in Product Selection in terms of Inventory Management. International Journal of Engineering Research and Development, 11(1), 163-172. https://doi.org/10.29137/umagd.391359
22. Kumar, R., Padhi, S.S., & Sarkar, A. (2019). Supplier selection of an Indian heavy locomotive manufacturer: An integrated approach using Taguchi loss function, TOPSIS, and AHP. IIMB Management Review, 31, 78-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2018.08.008
23. Madanchian, M., & Taherdoost, H. (2023). A Comprehensive guide to the TOPSIS method for multi-criteria decision making. Sustainable Social Development, 1(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.54517/ssd.v1i1.2220
24. Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., Nor, K. M., Khalifah, Z., Zakwan, N., & Valipour, A. (2015). Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications –a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Economic Research, 28(1), 516–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2015.1075139
25. Marzouk, M., Sabbah, M. (2021). AHP-TOPSIS social sustainability approach for selecting supplier in construction supply chain, Cleaner Environmental Systems, Volume 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2021.100034
26. Murali, P., Reddy, V. D., & Phaneendra, A. N. (2014). Supplier selection by using multi criteria decision making methods. International Journal of Engineering Research and General Science, 2(6),533-539.
27. Öztürk, D. (2019). AHP ve TOPSIS yöntemleri ile tedarikçi seçimi: Hazır giyim sektöründe bir uygulama. Tekstil ve Mühendis, 26(115), 299-308. https://doi.org/10.7216/1300759920192611510
28. Özözen, S. (2024). Türkiye’nin mobilya sektöründe uluslararası rekabet gücü: Seçilmiş ülkeler ile karşılaştırmalı analiz. Mobilya ve Ahşap Malzeme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(1), 107-120. https://doi.org/10.33725/mamad.1483546
29. Perçin, S. (2006). An application of the integrated AHP‐PGP model in supplier selection. Measuring Business Excellence, 10(4), 34-49. https://doi.org/10.1108/13683040610719263
30. Rakesh R. Menon, V. Ravi (2022). Using AHP-TOPSIS methodologies in the selection of sustainable suppliers in an electronics supply chain. Cleaner Materials, 5, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clema.2022.100130
31. Rodrigues, M., Šírová, E., & Mugurusi, G. (2022). A supplier selection decision model using multi-criteria decision analysis in a small manufacturing company . IFAC PapersOnLine , 55(10), 2773-2778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2022.10.149
32. Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83-98.
33. Singh, R.K. and Modgil, S. (2020). Supplier selection using SWARA and WASPAS – a case study of Indian cement industry", Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 243-265. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-07-2018-0041
34. Soyguder, S., & Gecer, E. (2023). Application of multi-criteria decision-making methods in supplier selection. Journal of Optimization & Decision Making, 2(2), 349-356.
35. Taherdoost, H., & Madanchian, M. (2023). A comprehensive overview of the ELECTRE method in multicriteria decision-making. Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research, 6(2),5-16. https://doi.org/10.30564/jmser.v6i2.5637
36. Taherdoost, H., & Madanchian, M. (2023). Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods and concepts. Encyclopedia, 3(1), 77-87. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia3010006
37. Talluri, S., & Narasimhan, R. (2003). Vendor evaluation with performance variability: A max–min approach. European Journal of Operational Research, , 146 (3), 543-552. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00230-8
38. Toklu, M. C., G. Çağıl, E. Pazar, and R. Faydalı (2018). SWARA-WASPAS Metodolojisine dayalı tedarikçi seçimi: Türkiye’de demir-çelik endüstrisi örneği”, APJES, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 113–120. https://doi.org/10.21541/apjes.441362
39. Ünver, Z., Ayvaz, B., (2023). A Novel Model for supplier selection problem with green approach: An application in the retail Industry, Journal of Technology and Applied Sciences 6-1, pp61-81. https://doi.org/10.56809/icujtas.1212392
40. Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). Multi-criteria decision making methods: A comparative study. Dordrecht: Springer.
41. Yildiz, A. (2019). Green supplier selection using topsis method: A case study from the automotive supply industry. Journal of Engineering Research and Applied Science, 8(2), 1146-1152.
42. Yu, S., Liu, M., Chen, L., Chen, Y., & Yao, L. (2024). Emotional Design and Evaluation of Children’s Furniture Based on AHP-TOPSIS. BioResources, 19(4), 7418–7433. Retrieved from https://ojs.bioresources.com/index.php/BRJ/article/view/23649
43. Yudhistira, A., Wang, J., Rahmanto, Y., & Setiawansyah, S. (2024). Decision Support System for Optimizing Supplier Selection Using TOPSIS and Entropy Weighting Methods. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Teknologi Indonesia, 4(5), 175-185. https://doi.org/10.52436/1.jpti.456
44. Zalas, A. R. (2023). Application of the WASPAS method in a selected technological process. Procedia Computer Science, 225 (2023) 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2023.10.002
45. Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J., & Zakarevicius, A. (2012). Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektronika Ir Elektrotechnika, 122(6), 3-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.eee.122.6.1810
46. Zhao, J. & Fang, Z. (2016). Research on Campus Bike Path Planning Scheme Evaluation Based on TOPSIS Method: Wei'shui Campus Bike Path Planning as an Example. Procedia Engineering, 137, 858-866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.01.326